bunpro-mcp

search

Search Bunpro grammar points and vocabulary by query. Returns compact matches with id, title, meaning; filter by type and limit results.

Instructions

Search Bunpro grammar points and vocabulary. Returns compact matches (id, title, kana, level, meaning) plus a truncated field when results were capped. Use the grammar/vocab flags to narrow the search and limit to cap each section (raw payloads can exceed 240 KB). Get full per-item detail via get_item.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	Search query (e.g. 'は', 'て-form', 'must')
`grammar`	No	Include grammar points in results
`vocab`	No	Include vocabulary in results
`limit`	No	Max results returned per type (grammar / vocab)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses return format (compact matches with truncated field) and warns about large payloads (240 KB). It does not explicitly state read-only nature but it is implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description explains return fields and truncated behavior. Adequately covers search tool needs given parameter count and sibling context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The description reinforces usage of grammar/vocab flags and limit but adds minimal new semantics beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches Bunpro grammar points and vocabulary, specifies the return fields, and distinguishes from the sibling tool get_item by advising to use it for full detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides guidance on using flags to narrow search and limit to cap sections, and advises using get_item for full per-item detail. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool but context makes it clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.